"Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
...the fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and flow like the sea, being govern'd, as the sea is, by the moon" [Henry IV, I.ii.31-33]
HISTORY NEVER REPEATS ITSELF, BUT IT OFTEN RHYMES
"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." Otto von Bismarck

Subscribe To

Friday, January 04, 2013

Democrats are Racist when it Comes to GOP Blacks

Col. Allen West is a victim for being a black Republican while the thirty member CBC remains a cesspool of corruption and sleazy opportunism. Read James Taranto's article linked above for the manner in which they are attacking Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. Note that the Dems have NO ZERO Blacks in the Senate. Only unindicted criminals like Maxine Waters and other plantation Representatives in every urban crime zone in the USA.

Here's the late Geraldine Ferraro's March 2008 comment on then-Sen. Barack Obama's meteoric rise: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. . . . He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro, who supported Mrs. Clinton, didn't use the T-word, but she was pilloried by the left and forced to apologize for suggesting that Obama's political strength was a case of tokenism.
Yet the substance of Ferraro's comment (apart from a dubious feminist complaint, which we elided above) is hard to dispute. It's almost impossible to imagine that a white junior senator from Illinois would have wrested the Democratic presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton, much less been elected president. Obama's race was a big part of his appeal to voters, stimulating black pride and assuaging white guilt. His supporters hailed both his election and re-election as a triumph of "diversity."
Other commentators have said the same of Scott's appointment to the Senate. National Journal's Josh Kraushaar, noting that Haley is only the nation's second Indian-American governor, wrote that she and Scott are both "tea party-aligned conservatives who took on the party establishment and won. . . . If it wasn't for the much-maligned tea party, the Republican Party would be even more homogeneous than it is today."

Taranto goes on to reveal the blatant hypocrisy of the apologist left in supporting Obama because he is [half] black and opposing two 100% blacks like Sen. Scott and SCOTUS member Clarence Thomas.
Here is Taranto on recent NYT Op-Ed writer Reed in 2008:

That would be the same Tea Party that Reed, echoing four years' worth of mainstream media propaganda, accuses of "thinly veiled racism." Does that mean he disagrees that the Tea Party is a source of GOP diversity?
Not really. "Tokenism" and "diversity" are synonyms. Both refer to the practice of advancing individuals in a way that preferentially takes account of their race for symbolic reasons. When you approve of the people or institution doing it, you use the euphemism "diversity." When you disapprove, you use the dysphemism "tokenism." ("Affirmative action" is a euphemism when applied to the practice but a dysphemism when applied to individual beneficiaries.)
What's more, in a May 2008 essay for The Progressive, Reed faulted the "hysterically indignant reaction" to Ferraro's statement about Obama. Although Reed didn't much care for Mrs. Clinton either, he did find her "the lesser evil in the Democratic race," and he thought Obama quite evil: "a vacuous opportunist." But that didn't get him in the Times, which is considerably more enthusiastic than he about Democratic politicians, including both Mrs. Clinton, whom it endorsed in the primaries, and Obama.

But Prof. Reed learned the code and now gets an NYT platform for his
"opportunism." And Obama retains the support of the plantations, even though the gang warfare has escalated in Chicago to nation-topping percentages. Over 500 for 2012. But they don't care as long as they get their free phones and food stamps.

On the question of black Republicans like Tim Scott, however, the far left and the mainstream Democratic left are fully in accord. "Modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests," Reed writes, citing Reagan administration officials Samuel Pierce, Clarence Pendleton and Clarence Thomas. Pierce and Pendleton are both long dead, but Thomas made it to the Supreme Court, where he remains the left's greatest bête noire. White liberals like Timothy Noah and Maureen Dowd seem to enjoy the frisson of denouncing Justice Thomas in racially charged terms that would be regarded as invidious if not career-ending in reference to any nonconservative black person.
"The trope of the black conservative has retained a man-bites-dog newsworthiness that is long past its shelf life," Reed concludes. "Republicans will not gain significant black support unless they take policy positions that advance black interests."
But wait. Obama received near-unanimous support from blacks in both 2008 and 2012, not only against Republican opponents but also against Mrs. Clinton. Yet to hear Reed tell it in 2008, Obama was no friend of "black interests":
His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did--i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming "tough love" message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he's able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.
Whatever "black interests" may actually mean, Democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media have done a very effective job of propagating the idea that they are identical to the interests of the Democratic Party. That's why the rise of a black conservative remains a man-bites-dog story, and it's why the Times saw fit to publish Reed's attack on Scott.
A considerable majority of whites now vote Republican. Some 60% backed Mitt Romney even though he lost. But no mainstream conservative denounces white Democrats for working against "white interests." The race-based demand for political conformity to which Reed, despite his own eccentric views, gives voice is a burden borne uniquely by blacks.
On the question of black Republicans like Tim Scott, however, the far left and the mainstream Democratic left are fully in accord. "Modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests," Reed writes, citing Reagan administration officials Samuel Pierce, Clarence Pendleton and Clarence Thomas. Pierce and Pendleton are both long dead, but Thomas made it to the Supreme Court, where he remains the left's greatest bête noire. White liberals like Timothy Noah and Maureen Dowd seem to enjoy the frisson of denouncing Justice Thomas in racially charged terms that would be regarded as invidious if not career-ending in reference to any nonconservative black person.
"The trope of the black conservative has retained a man-bites-dog newsworthiness that is long past its shelf life," Reed concludes. "Republicans will not gain significant black support unless they take policy positions that advance black interests."
But wait. Obama received near-unanimous support from blacks in both 2008 and 2012, not only against Republican opponents but also against Mrs. Clinton. Yet to hear Reed tell it in 2008, Obama was no friend of "black interests":
His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did--i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming "tough love" message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he's able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.
Whatever "black interests" may actually mean, Democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media have done a very effective job of propagating the idea that they are identical to the interests of the Democratic Party. That's why the rise of a black conservative remains a man-bites-dog story, and it's why the Times saw fit to publish Reed's attack on Scott.
A considerable majority of whites now vote Republican. Some 60% backed Mitt Romney even though he lost. But no mainstream conservative denounces white Democrats for working against "white interests." The race-based demand for political conformity to which Reed, despite his own eccentric views, gives voice is a burden borne uniquely by blacks.

The racist Democrats outdo the GOP & the Tea Party racism 100-1 in their deep opportunism and hypocrisy.

No comments
:

Facebook Badge

Links

About Me

"''I have drunk ale from the Country of the Young And weep because I know all things now: I have been a hazel-tree, and they hung The Pilot Star and the Crooked Plough
Among my leaves in times out of mind....' Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments...the fortune of us that are the moon's men doth ebb and flow like the sea, being govern'd, as the sea is, by the moon."
Twenty-and-eight the phases of the moon, The full and the moon’s dark and all the crescents, Twenty-and-eight, and yet but six-and-twenty The cradles that a man must needs be rocked in: For there’s no human life at the full or the dark. From the first crescent to the half, the dream But summons to adventure and the man Is always happy like a bird or a beast; But while the moon is rounding towards the full He follows whatever whim’s most difficult...An aged man is but a paltry thing,A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress....Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.